Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Plan on seeing the movie "Lincoln"? Keep this in mind...

1832 - Lincoln begins his political career in the Illinois legislature

“I presume you all know who I am. I am humble Abraham Lincoln. I have been solicited by many friends to become a candidate for the legislature. My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman’s dance. I am in favor of a national bank…in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff.”

Lincoln hits the ground running with central banking, corporate welfare, and high taxation. We are still living with all of them...only the players have changed.

1838 - Lincoln's corporate welfare brings Illinois to its knees
William H. Herndon, Lincoln’s law partner and one of his closest friends, wrote:

“Every river and stream…was to be widened, deepened, and made navigable. A canal to connect the Illinois River and Lake Michigan was to be dug…cities were to spring up everywhere; capital from abroad was to come pouring in; attracted by the glowing reports of marvelous progress and great internal wealth, people were to come swarming in by colonies, until in the end Illinois was to outstrip all others, and herself become the Empire State of the Union.”...

“The internal improvement system, the adoption of which Lincoln had played such a prominent part, had collapsed, with the result that Illinois was left with an enormous debt and empty treasury.”

But back to Lincoln. You'd think that after such a disaster, one would lose all credibility and trustworthiness.

Nope! When it comes to government, nothing succeeds like failure.

1858 - The Great Emancipator on the black & white races
Lincoln's words from the famous Lincoln vs. Douglas debate on Sept. 18, 1858:

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause] — that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, not to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."

1861 - Abraham Lincoln - The First Republican President
The dreadful political party that we're still battling today began with Lincoln.

Please don't fool yourself into thinking that somehow The Republican Party, that was born in tyranny, will end up getting taken over by Libertarians; and the country will return to the freedom-loving days of the founding fathers.

No.

It surely can't happen that way.

The Republican Party, since day one, and all the way up to today, is no friend of liberty. The saying "by their fruits, ye shall know them" speaks volumes here. It reminds you to look at the root.

The root of The Republican Party tree lies here in 1861. Don't ever expect it to grow the fruits of liberty.

Before moving on, let's not skip past Lincoln's first inaugural address. He touched on the question of slavery and quoted one of his earlier published speeches:

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

1861 - Lincoln refuses a peaceful Southern Secession
Many Americans (educated by their government, of course) believe that "The Civil War" was fought to free the slaves. This is just not true. This was a war over Southern secession.

The war is misnamed. It was not a Civil War. The South had no interest in taking over the Northern government.

Confederate President Jefferson Davis wanted to make clear to the North that the Confederates did not constitute a threat to the government in Washington:

“We seek no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind…all we ask is to be let alone.”

President Davis appointed three commissioners to negotiate with the North. The commissioners reached Washington on Mar. 5, 1861, the day after Lincoln’s inauguration.

Lincoln's response? He outright refused to see the commissioners, and also refused to recognize the Confederate government.

Whether the South wanted conquest or not made no difference. It was the economic policies of the South that enraged the North.

You see, the Confederate Constitution created, in essence, a free trade zone with opposition to protectionism. It stated:

“but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importation from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry.”

Davis, in his Inaugural Address stated that he was “anxious to cultivate peace and commerce with all nations,” and that “our policy is peace, and the freest trade our necessities will permit.”

This was in stark contrast to the North's high-taxes and protectionism. And remember what Lincoln said when he entered politics: "I am in favor of a national bank…in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff."

Free Trade? Ha!

The North was in no way going to allow the South become an attractive market for the rest of the world, while at the same time, pricing out the North.

On Apr. 2, 1861 The Newark Daily Advertiser, warned ominously that Southerners had apparently “taken to their bosoms the liberal and popular doctrine of free trade” and that they “might be willing to go…toward free trade with the European powers” which “must operate to the serious disadvantage of the North” as “commerce will be largely diverted to the Southern cities.”

This is America...the "land of the free"...and if there's one thing that will not be tolerated, it's free trade.

When Lincoln was in Congress, he had no problem with secession. In a speech on Jan. 12, 1848, he said:

“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.”

But as President, Lincoln's words went out the door as fast as George W. Bush's "humble" foreign policy.

As President, Lincoln called secession the “essence of anarchy.”

In other words, if the South wanted free trade, then it was time for Lincoln to invade.

Apr. 20, Lincoln ordered the Sec. of Treasury to spend public money for defense without congressional appropriation, violating the Constitution.

Apr. 27, Lincoln made the unprecedented move of suspending, through an unconstitutional order, the writ of habeas corpus, or the protection against unlawful imprisonment.

Lincoln signed a warrant for the arrest of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court because the Judge rendered an opinion that Lincoln acted unconstitutionally by suspending the writ of habeas corpus.

Lincoln had U.S. Rep. Clement Vallandigham of Ohio arrested for “disloyal sentiments and speeches.” Vallandigham opposed the Morrill Tariff and the central bank.

An estimated 13,000 Northern citizens were detained for merely expressing opposition to the war. This group contained hundreds of newspaper editors and owners. None of these people ever heard evidence against them and were never brought to trial.

During the war, adult male civilians in the South were compelled to take a loyalty oath to the federal government or be shot. In the words of Justice Benjamin R. Curtis, Lincoln had established “a military despotism.”

1862 - What's war without paper money to pay for it?
In the Legal Tender Act of Feb. 1862, Congress authorized the printing of $150 million in new “United States notes” (Greenbacks) to pay for the growing war deficits. “In God We Trust” was also introduced on the U.S. dollar in 1862 when it’s gold backing was dropped.

1862 - The Great Emancipator on freeing slaves
Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

Lincoln's America
In the interest of brevity, I'll end with a quote from H.L. Mencken. He talks about Lincoln's absurd claim, in The Gettysburg Address, that Northern soldiers fought for the cause of self-determination:

"It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. The Confederates went into the battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision of the rest of the country."

The "Union" was saved...geographically. The spirit of self-determination and decentralization was crushed.

Sadly, for generations to come (including us) the power of centralized government in America had only just begun.

Two things:1- The anti-Federalists warned that the Constitution would give us the government that we have. They apparently understood human nature better than the Federalists, some of whom were schemers like Hamilton and others maybe just too idealistic like Madison.2- Founders like Franklin and Adams also warned that the new Constitution would work only for a virtuous and moral people. I feel that the people, through their lack of virtue and morality, have failed the Constitution than the other way around.

"The root of The Republican Party tree lies here in 1861. Don't ever expect it to grow the fruits of liberty."

Once the seed of the state is planted, the only tree it can grow is its bitter fruit of tyranny. Unless, perhaps, it is vigilantly pruned and trimmed by the rule of law of a Republic. But, sadly the American experiment has failed...but then again the experiment might be a success in proving once and for all that the state should never be planted in the first place.

Mr. Rossini gives the standard libertarian explanation for the cause of the war: basically tariffs. I don't believe that to be the real cause. Contrary to the idea that the South was sticking to the original ideals of the founders, some point to the South's constitution as proof. The South's total control of their economy during the war seems to contradict this Utopian vision of the South.I believe libertarians view the South too favorably. To me, Americans were trying to build an empire from day one. One of the first military actions of the Revolutionary War was the invasion of Canada. Some of the anti-federalists perceptively pointed out the imperialistic designs of their fellow Americans. In any case, the North held no monopoly on imperial plans. The War with Mexico was even opposed by some in the North. What was happening was much like today when Republicans and Democrats fight over our booty. The South and North had different imperial interests, (The South, Cuba and central America, the North, the great plains and Canada). So I believe the 1861 conflict was the North establishing its control before they could eradicate the Indians, securing our manifest destiny. And then moving overseas in the war of 1898 and beyond.

I think the point of this post is to inject some factual historical context into the orgy of Lincoln worship that the movie no doubt exploits. The Confederacy obviously had some serious moral issues regarding it's acceptance of slavery as an economic institution, but in this regard it was little different than the Yankee aggressors.

Using the 3 strikes method I have determined that this movie should be avoided at all cost because:

Strike #1 - Daniel Day Lewis is an embarrassingly histrionic over actor.

Strike #2 - Steven Spielberg is the most over rated director in motion picture history.

Strike #3 - Any movie that glorifies the tyrant Lincoln or the Federal government is evil and wretched.

It probably just appears that libertarians favor the south because they are attempting to bring balance to the hilarious pravda style media coverage of lincoln and the north and the propaganda of what happened in the war.

This idea shared by neo-cons, liberals, marxist historians, the mainstream media, and virtually all public school history teachers that Lincoln fought the war to free the slaves, and the EP is what freed them, shows exactly how easy it is for the state and its proxies to lie to the public and convince them of everything.

I don't think two movies and a Bill O Reilly book all in the last year are a coincidence, as the establishment is very much concerned about Ron Paul and the austrians like dilorenzo educating the public about Lincoln and what a tyrant he was.

Josiah, you're a complete idiot if you think libertarians view the southern states as some sort of utopia. And please, will you statist morons stop using that damned word (utopia) every single time you mention libertarianism. It just makes you look even more stupid.

In case your tiny brain has trouble reading the look VERY carefully......

You guys are kidding right? Embarrassing. When did I say libertarians view it as an utopia? I make the point, forgive me if I don't stoop to call you names, I am a dumbass that way,but you are the only one who used the word utopia. Btw,@anon 11:53,you may want to check out Rothbard's (Murray if case you don't know) contention that America has had two just wars: The Revolutionary and the South's defense against the North. I agree that the South had the right to defend itself though I wouldn't have joined up in Lee's army, but that discussion is way beyond you fellows. My points were apparently a bit too subtle for some of the readers here. They think I am trying to smear libertarians with the tired old bromide of neo-confederate slavery supporters. My post says or implies neither.

For well read libertarian readers they will be aware of what I write. One example is here on a favorable article on the Confederate Constitution http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=353Others can be found by SEARCHING. I also am skeptical that the war was mainly fought because of the tariff difference. (note to Mike, this does not mean I believe it was because of slavery) I view the South as the junior partner in the empire that is America. Now it takes a fair amount of thinking to discern what this implies and whether it makes sense, but, golly, the discussion here is embarrassing for a fourth grade class.

Sorry to dwell, I don't mind being called a dirty stinkin anarchist but a statist? What kind of Pudd'nhead (a gratuitous reference to Mark Twain, he was an American writer of some note in the 19th century for some of the readers here) can't tell the difference between an anarchist and a statist?I donated in the early 80s to help found the Mises Institute, I have Ron Paul cook books from the same period because I was donating to his reelection campaigns for Congress back then. I supported him in "88. In 2007, I donated to the campaign email that said Paul needed $25,000 to participate in the famous South Carolina debate. I use the moniker Josiah in honor of Josiah Warren, in fact, I visited New Harmony, IN to see his flawed but interesting labor exchange store. (So one could argue that at least one libertarian/anarchist believed in utopias.) The point being: work on your reading and thinking skills and keep a civil tongue.

Out of context quotes and a slim acquaintance with history from Rossini. He cites Thomas DiLorenzo who is a libertarian propagandist. Lincoln was NOT a dictator--he was elected in 1860 in the second highest voter turnout in all American political history and reelected President during a wartime election in 1864 that many advised him to to hold. See my blog posts "Lincoln in London", "Two views of the Hartford Convention" and others.

I have no love of the south, but voting still produces tyrants and tyranny. I don't see how democracy by a bunch of chimpanzees walking upright justifies force against a minority. Whatever his approval by the electorate, Lincoln's acts were horrendous. Unlike popular lore usually over the issue of slavery, he was not a freedom-fighter by any means (well, unless you mean fighter against freedom)

So, refusing to whitewash Lincoln's record makes DiLorenzo a "libertarian propagandist"? Oh well, I guess that's a step up from "neo-Confederate," which is the usual ad hominem from defenders of mass murder and tyranny.

Mr. Kelly also praises FDR and attacks Ron Paul on his blog -- with school-yard insults, rather than rational argumentation, of course. In other words, he is a typical modern-day "conservative," meaning a lover of war, empire and police statism. These types worship the military and police (basically anyone wearing a uniform and mindlessly following orders) and think that centuries-old rights of due process are just annoyances standing in the way of killing those evil-doers that are always threatening Amurkha.

That being said: where is your proof that Rossini and DiLorenzo have their facts wrong? Or are we to accept your characterization of DiLorezo as a propagandist, Rossini as not knowing his Lincoln history, and the fact that Lincoln won a few elections as a credible refutation of this Lincoln article?

lol @ out of context quotes. I guess shutting down newspapers, trying to get the head of the supreme court arrested, throwing thousands in prison without charge or trial, arresting a sitting US congressman, the irony of forcing part of Virginia to secede, intentionally targeting civilians and towns, proposing a permanent amendment authorizing slavery yet threatening invasion on any state not collecting the full tariff rate, etc were all "out of context."

Speaking of out of context, please oh please point out the part of the Emancipation Proclamation that "frees the slaves" as all of the marxist/liberal/neo-con lovers of Lincolns claim. You already have a blog, so get to it!

Actually, Hitler was NOT voted in. The Nazi held a balance of power in a multi-party Reichstag, and were proposing screwing the government/country unless they got hold of power. President Hindenberg caved under extreme pressure and appointed Hitler to the position he wanted, and Hitler then used it to circumvent further activity by the Reichstag. The Nazis never got more than about 30% of the popular vote, but once Hitler was in a position to rule by decree, the Reichstag was cut out of the equation. [OK, that's very simplified, but the point is that Hitler was not elected, and not supported by an electoral majority. He found the loophole in the system that allowed him to skip all that election rubbish and go straight to power.]

@JosiahEconomics was an underlining theme for the civil war. However I can't speak for Rossini but alot of fellow libertarians acknowledge that the South wasn't as innocent and a beacon a liberty as Paleoconservatives like to paint it. Both the North/Federal and Confederate governments were pretty damm statist (as you pointed out with the South controlling its economy during the war) is just that when someone really looks beyond the public school version of the civil war the North edges out because they didn't want the South to leave.

I would like to add to the list to books that expose Lincoln for what he really was.

Because as we all know Christopher, real dictators speak foreign languages, wear bad guy clothes (like a black cape!), and twirl the ends of their mustache maniacally as they plot global domination. They NEVER win large pools of the gullible voters by promising remuneration, jobs, make-work projects, and other such empty demagoguery and platitudes.

Only a Lincoln cultist can conjure up excuses for mass murder, crushing free speech and free men, and racist bigotry as national policy.

They get humiliated and smack down in open debates with Dilorenzo and Woods on the issue, so they have basically dropped that tactic with instead using the racial ambulance chasing of the left by calling anyone a "neo-confederate" who is honest about Lincoln and the north.

Nothing is more frightening than evidence that what you were taught in the government schools was stupidity on stilts. The implications - that your brain was stuffed with nonsense for many years by morons - is scary beyond words. Only the very courageous (you & I) can face it. The Claremont Institute and National Review crowd are masters at affecting grand big picture global see-all large-brain worldly comprehension decorated with multi-syllabic condescension toward infidels - the very same skill set their statist school teachers had. Imagine how scary it is for them to see themselves as stupid. It doesn't compute. Most humans would rather destroy the Earth than admit they were fooled. These gangs would destroy the universe.

Great article! Don't forget the most glaring bit of propaganda about Lincoln taught in schools, "conservative" talk radio, and in the mainstream media: The Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave. Not one. It even exempted down to the individual county level in Southern states that were controlled by the north from this supposed "freeing of the slaves" that we are all taught in school. It wasn't until I read DiLorenzo that I realized this was the case.

For anyone who doubts me, go read the document itself which 99.9% of people in America who think Lincoln freed the slaves have not done. Lincoln started this war and fought it and "freed the slaves" about as much a George W Bush invaded Iraq for WMDs.

Once again, we realize that much of what we have been taught and believe to be true is just plain manufactured crap.

As we begin to deal with the fact that our view of the world, other countries, other faiths, and others beliefs is wrong, we start to walk the path of truth. This is not easy an easy task, because it takes an open mind, the ability to analyze new facts, and a pure and humble heart to accept and admit that we have been wrong.

It is, however, the most important issue we face. Only by shining the light of truth in every dark corner of our world will we be able to realize the dream of "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for all. It is our highest calling.

You all are freaking nut jobs. Head cases who think they have all the answers. Everyone's wrong in this world except for Ron Paul who magically has all the perfect answers. Find a cliff and jump off it. Thanks.

I could list dozens of issues where I disagree with Dr Paul. I agree with him 98% of the time (far more than Romnebama) so your ignorant post just makes me sad that you are too stupid to see how stupid you are.

Not all Republicans are war-mongers and not all Republicans love Lincoln. I know many, many Republicans who can't stand Lincoln and think he was the worst President ever (we may have the second worst in office right now). However, I personally have not drunk the Ron Paul koolaid. Ron Paul is not nearly as Conservative and Libertarian as many Libertarians would like for people to think. In an independent study, he was determined to be only 145th on the list of most Conservative Congressional representatives. He has tried to pass 620 laws, but I think has only actually passed 3. 620 laws is a lot of laws and rules for someone who says he believes that less government is better! Ron Paul had some of the most racist comments I've read in a long time printed in his newsletters about 15 or 20 years ago. He has never apologized for them but instead tried to pass them off as somebody else's comments. He owned the newsletter, for crying out loud! I think the only reason he tried to run as a Libertarian is because the true Conservatives know that he would be cancerous for this country, and that his statements and views could possibly cause race riots. He's about as nutty as they come. So, we're back to who has the best answers and the best plan? Nobody so far, though I did enjoy hearing Romney say that we need to try to turn over as much as possible to the states and take broad powers away from the federal gov. At least that was heading in a better direction. In many ways, Romney sounded more Conservative than Ron Paul! I know people will start hating on me for saying that, but Romney brought a lot of business sense to the table and advocated individual responsibility and personal freedom which has been out of the political rhetoric for awhile. I think he's far more conservative than people gave him credit for. Oh well, now we're stuck with four more years of nonsense with a president who hopes to sell our souls to the United Nations and truly take away as much personal freedom as possible including educational, religious, and second amendment liberties. He and John Kerry are still trying to push the ratification of the ridiculous U.N. treaties--one on the U.N. Rights of the Child and one on the Persons with disabilities Act, both of which would give the United Nations nearly unlimited powers to determine how children are raised, where or if children may attend church, IF anybody should be allowed to have guns in their own homes. The U.N. is the real threat to personal liberty, not the Republicans or the Democrats or the Libertarians and the in-fighting. WAKE UP, FOLKS! Obama and Kerry are trying hard to give away the country!!

When recomending books with the history they never taught in Yankee high schools, I like to include Charles Adams' =When in the Course of Human Events=, Fremantle's =Three Months in the Southern States=, and Brown's =Baltimore and the Nineteenth of April 1861= (Fremantle was a British soldier, supposedly anti-slavery, who came to America in 1863, spent most of his time in the South, crossed the lines near Gettysburg in July prior to returning home, and kept a diary. Brown was mayor of Baltimore on the day mentioned in his title.) Go to Amazon and check out the reviews for these books.